Best CIC/IIC? Any advice on other brands?

It’s really interesting to me reading all these comments on what seems to be a debate over an ITE device v a RIC. Everyone loves AI. we must have all the AI. we must have all the amazing RIC features. None of you have mentioned directionality, which you lose with a RIC. I’ve said many times on posts here before, if you stick a RIC on your head, the mics are in the wrong place to take advantage of your ear anatomy. Close your eyes, set the phone ringing and try and find it wearing RICs. It can be done for sure, but it’s hard and fuzzy. I agree most people aren’t in the situation I’m in, but I do think more people would benefit from directionality to assist their eyes. Wearing RICs also makes wearing different styles of headphones inconvenient.
RICs are cheaper to make, easier to fit, have all the features described above, but as a totally blind person who relies on using my ears as ears, I really think this huge push towards RICs is a bit scued from what our bodies are naturally designed to do. I do completely get the annoyance of acclusion BTW, that is a pain.
I’m not saying anyone is wrong with any of the arguments above as to why ITE or CIC devices are wrong, just that I think ultimately the push should be to solve the in ear device problem. Make a Lyric type device with an adjustable band set and bluetooth and I think a lot more people would go for them.

I have always wondered/thought that about the RICs. The microphones are behind your ear, in fact many of the microphone ports are facing behind you.
That is just one reason why I prefer my Eargo units over my P90s. The IIC units make use of your natural ear design to allow you to directionally hear things. As well allow for over the ear head phones or noise canceling head phones. Use of a telephone like normal. You can lay your head down on a pillow on your ear and not crush a RIC into yourself (and take it off to feel comfortable). You can put on and remove glasses without fumbling with the RIC. Same goes for masks if you are wearing them.

The eargos aren’t a hearing aid, they are a PSAP.

Where do you find the Eargo 5, 6 or 7 series declared a PSAP? I see Eargo clearly states that they are not a PSAP but both an OTC and prescription hearing aid and identified as such by the FDA.

I’m not an audiologist, but when I watch a video showing a REM session with the Eargo 6 aids, it seems to be correctly working in specific frequencies based upon the fitting test and not an across the board amplification (approx 8m30s in this video https://youtu.be/E1QcwnRm9OI?si=j_XsHiLNYx8ytOt64).

As I said, it is 50/50 with people loving or hating the Eargo products. I have both my P90s and Eargo 7s and use them for different situations. But find I use the Eargos 2 to 3 times as much as the P90s.

But I would be interested to see where they have been declared a PSAP or even tested and found to be a PSAP and not a frequency based aid.

Anyhoo, this is kind of changing the OP thread. Back to his original question about options for IIC and CIC devices, I simply offered the Eargo. I am looking forward to when I am able to trial and most likely switch to the Lyrics. That I think is the best solution available.

@Xonic83 said:

None of you have mentioned directionality, which you lose with a RIC

Actually they have directional microphones, which the CIC don’t, there’s no conclusive evidence that CIC/ ITE are “better” in this regard, but ReSound does have the M&RIE for RIC models, and your right that they should do more into getting CIC ,ITE features the same.

https://pro.resound.com/en-us/research/features-explained/microphone-and-receiver-in-ear5

When I talk about directionality I’m not talking about directional mics. Maybe I need a new word to explain it. What I mean is, the binaural sense of in front, behind and proper left and right with degrees of seperation is lost with RICs. I’ve not tried resound I@m really interested in this. Someone mentioned the platform is old but yeah I’m really curious to see what kind of devices they are.
RICs in my experience really don’t simulate a natural field of sound like something in your ear. The deeper the ITE is, the better the experience of whatever this word is, directionality etc.

My google search came up with this, perhaps it is what you are referring to?

The human ear achieves natural acoustics and directionality primarily through the unique shape of the outer ear (pinna), which reflects sound waves in a way that varies depending on the sound source’s direction, allowing the brain to interpret the subtle differences in sound reaching each ear and pinpoint the sound’s location; this process is further enhanced by the slight time difference and intensity variations between the ears when a sound originates from the side.

This is great info, thanks!

Do you have any further info on the upcoming 2025 Oticon Own IIC chips? (Are you an HA provider/Audiologist?)

Is it safe to say that most IIC/CIC share the same chips within their brands? IE; an Own 1 IIC and CIC will have the same chip, and same for the other brands correct?

I am pretty sure I do not have low frequency hearing loss (I believe it’s a highs/mids issue, having problems with speech clarity), but I will know for sure tomorrow after my Costco appointment. I’ll make sure to get and upload my audiogram here.

Btw do most standard audiograms/hearing tests do an REM or is that something specific that must be requested from the HA provider?

@Um_bongo said:

directional features require two mics and binaural aid interaction

“None of you have mentioned directionality, which you lose with a RIC. I’ve said many times on posts here before, if you stick a RIC on your head, the mics are in the wrong place to take advantage of your ear anatomy.”

Yeah I did.

Also, you don’t understand how directional mics work: or the degree of pinna effect.

@richardsondc said:

The human ear achieves natural acoustics and directionality primarily through the unique shape of the outer ear (pinna), which reflects sound waves in a way that varies depending on the sound source’s direction, allowing the brain to interpret the subtle differences in sound reaching each ear and pinpoint the sound’s location; this process is further enhanced by the slight time difference

No, it’s mainly by the phase differential/time between the ears.

Well I am in Toronto, so that’s perfect!
I will probe at Costco for the REM, and ask if CIC is appropriate for my results.

Sorry, we weren’t clear about that I guess. Being a CIC candidate only depends on your hearing loss. REMs are at the fitting appointment. So you have to ask if it will be done at the first fitting appointment.

When I was learning, I had heard from so many providers that REM was unnecessary and NAL-NL2 was too loud. Most everyone would fit to proprietary fitting targets.

When I was on my own more, I would fit people according to REM and NAL-NL2 targets and I had countless people coming back to tell me that they were the best hearing aids they ever had. Many of these people went to places that would be considered “top tier” and have excellent reputations (as far as hospitals go). When the situation permits, I will connect to their previous hearing aids or perform a transition fitting to evaluate their previous hearing aids and the results are usually disappointing.

I can tell you anecdotally that from what I see (USA) is that the majority (50-70%) don’t fit to REM targets, or fit to the targets because it’s required/requested, and then reset to the manufacturers predicted targets.

It’s such a shame because without REM, it’s impossible to know if you are over or under the amplification you intend to provide.

When it comes to CIC/IIC/custom hearing aids in general, the manufacturers fitting ranges are worthless until verified with REM. Often feedback becomes an issue well before those ranges can be reached. Or, like a recent fitting, even with a high power receiver on an ITE device with the MPOs at maximum, the measures MPO sweep peaks at 95 and is somewhere near 85 to 90 until 2khz. Looks good on paper but not when measured. Makes it tough on new providers, let alone on informed consumers trying to compare devices. I’m not telling you anything new; just sharing to the forum in general.

I think the forum is lucky to have you who will give important information and insights.

I think I’m using the wrong word for directionality. I do understand how directional mics work and I do understand that timing is supposed to play a key role in the pinna effect. however, with respect, I don’t think sighted people fully understand the degree to which blind people like myself use the pinna effect and how we achieve a sense of directionality through that effect. When I have Lyrics in my ears, I can use the full pinna and shape of my ear to image the room around me. I can walk in a room and hear the walls, hear where things are placed as I move around it, by listening to the very subtle echos. You and I have actually talked about this before on the phone so you understand that I have a good degree of understanding of how hearing aids work You get somewhat of a binaural effect wearing RICS, but it’s very poor stereo at best. At least that’s how it sounds to me. maybe others find it better but I’d be willing to bet money that if you plug someones ears with custom molds locked on to RICs, close their eyes and then ask them to point specifically at a sound source in the room, a lot would struggle.
even the best headphones like Turtle beech which strive for a true binaural effect rarely actually achieve this. My impression is that it really varies from person to person. I know that the deeper those mics are in my ear, the better I can immage the world around me. I don’t think it’s all about timing. I think it is about timing plus the unique shape of a persons ear and the unique way their brain understands the shape of their ear. Even using a binaural dummy with shaped ears doesn’t quite give that binaural effect, because you don’t have the same ears as the dummy and then you lose a lot in the translation to headphones. I think probably each persons unique ear shape is like a key that only their brain can unlock to give that natural and understandable sense of space.
I’ll try to give an example: When I put Lyrics in my ears at the audiologists, I pointed to a big… something in the room that I could hear. Said something was not making a noise by the way. It just sat there as a huge sound shadow. I asked what it was. The audi was utterly amazed and said that’s the microscope. I then pointed to a wall about 3 foot in front of me and guessed the distance. I then spun around and pointed directly at his head without him making a noise. This isn’t magic, it’s just using sound shadows and echos.

this is why I am always banging on about devices in the ears. I completely get all the drawbacks everyone has mentioned here of course. I’m not even sure I’d use ITEs for all the reasons given. I do think though this is ultimately the best way for the body to translate sound. The problem of course is that tech hasn’t caught up yet and devices with this much power can’t be shoved in the ears without causing problems.